Skip to main content

tv   Board of Appeals 102616  SFGTV  October 28, 2016 4:00pm-5:16pm PDT

4:00 pm
>> the wednesday, october 265, 2016, of the san francisco board of appeals. the presiding officer is commissioner honda and we are joined by commissioner fong and
4:01 pm
commissioning commissioner wilson will be absent to my left is brad the deputy city attorney and prides the board with any legal advice and at the controls gary and i'm cynthia goldstein the board's executive director. and joined by sacramento the city zoning administrator and representing the planning commission and planning department devices are prohibited. out in the hallway. permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes, participants not affiliated have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or business card to the clerk.
4:02 pm
speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction forms available. if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i
4:03 pm
do. please note: any of the members may speak without taking if you're going to testify please standard you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> okay. thank you commissioner president honda this is is a housekeeping item four on tonight calendar regarding a building permit on twin peaks board of that case has been withdrawn and not heard this evening. >> regarding item number one that is general public comment this is the opportunity for anyone who wants to address the board on a matter within the jurisdiction that is an item not on tonight calendar any general public comment tonight okay. seeing none move to item 2 commissioners questions or comments and still crying being
4:04 pm
at last night's warriors game other than that i'm okay. >> item 3 the consideration of the minutes of the board meeting of the october 19, 2016, additions, deletions, or changes can i have a motion? >> to accept the minutes. >> so moved. >> the motion from commissioner lazarus any public comment on the minutes. >> seeing none, then on that motion from commissioner lazarus commissioner fung commissioner president honda commissioner swig 0 e thank you that item passes with a vote of 4 to zero commissioner wilson absent we'll take our item 5 appeal carmen versus the zoning administrator on richardson avenue protest protesting the issuance of a
4:05 pm
rear yard variance constrict a 3 floor and roof deck for the rear yard of a single-family dwelling and we'll start with the appellant. >> good evening and welcome. >> i guess you didn't release i ordered a private hearing this evening. >> yes. this is so rare actually. >> i feel like i'm at the end of the >> welcome reuben, junius & rose i need to make a disclosure. i wish to disclose i've hired reuben, julius & rose on a on a project of my own the handling the board will not have an effect on my decision. this evening. >> thank you, commissioners ryan patterson on behalf of the appellant an appeal to construct a third floor on top of a 2 story in the marina my client
4:06 pm
owns the adjacent property directly to the north at the 2547 to 49 cellist nut street and owns the rental property on chestnut street renderings and we're here because the variance that was granted will have a terrible impact on the properties destroying an existing bedroom as you may know the board of appeals has wide discretion in hearing the deliberations with the power and the board thinks that vaurnsz are not to be granted whether when there is a harding park on the property that is hardship variance law and other things not met including that is a qualifying hardship that makes the variance necessary not the
4:07 pm
run of mill normal circumstance with a small lot and someone needs the lots in order to develop it, it is a small lot but created by others predecessor in fact, the owners predecessor used to own both properties the appellants property to the north. >> can i have the overhead? >> this is the the subject property and the appellants home here this is lot 12 and this is lot 12 a and the history is in 1940 after a road was cut to the golden gate bridge these lots were divided but not until after the the subject property u subject structure was built one owned the lot and built the existing appellants property long before in 1939, 1940 built
4:08 pm
the structure after that was dub after the same owner that happened to design this property that owner decided to split the walk intentionally creating the sub standard conditions for both properties this tina separation between the two now they were allowed to do this because the building department imposed a asking 40 permit to construct this property there's a restriction and on the overhead you see it note on the permit to construct mr. boskovich will talk about that requiring the separation is between the properties so the applicant comes here to destroy that decoration was the condition of constructing their house this is the old adage ask
4:09 pm
for a cookie instead of a crone i'm happy to address that i'll mention the variance are holder counsel pointed out one thing that super seated didn't talk about a legal citation i can give us other citations pointed out one citations is inplausible to this situation i'll ask her to say a word or two thank you. >> someone reminded me, you can't fight city hall yet here he am asking for an appeal thank you for your time my name is carmen i've lived on 2547 chestnut street lived here my whole life and own rental unit on cellist nut the building next door to my home in 40 years i've
4:10 pm
never formally opposed anything any of my neighbors wanted to do by that project will effect any home and the two homes of high neighbors the addition of a third floor to a roof deck walls in my two properties filling in the small setback brings richard southern closure to my building only a few feet between the building and and setback notch that separates that richardson from my home and the neighbors building those buildings are tight like puzzles pieces we're able to live side to side because 68 richardson a 2 story building by upholding
4:11 pm
your deoperating us of privacy and the quiet enjoyment of all our bedrooms on the back all of this so 68 richardson a building that defies city code can have a hot tube and fire pit so i ask you to take a look at this project and overturn this variance decision thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'll be very quick the 1939 code when this main building was built here basically said do you want you want to do when they got a permit to build the permit application referenced the housing act required a 4 feet separation and 8 feet separation to two building it is in the
4:12 pm
brief verbatim to the housing act from that window to the bedroom to the average of that preschools no such if they in fill that puzzle we're effecting this permit when they permitting this building it was on the same lot and if you read the description on the application it calls out separation from one building and the other building both the buildings are tried together to this notch you remove the notch our opening up that window and have to revisit that issue. >> thank you okay. >> we can hear from the variance holder.
4:13 pm
>> welcome. >> good evening commissioner president honda and commissioners david silver had an on behalf of the carter family can i have the overhead? sfgov just to orient everyone to the site this is richardson right here this is congest nhestnut over h pink dot it the carter's property quite a way from the property this is a 5 thousand square feet property with two
4:14 pm
houses lot line to local 104 line 100 percent coverage we're over here 6 hundred and 18 square feet 5 thousand, 6 hundred and 18 you'll notice that every house loan richardson is 3 stories including our adjacent you'll notice all the houses along chestnut 3 stories now their chief complainant as i understood their testimony is about a window this is the window this window is on the second story of the rear of the sdelz
4:15 pm
property you'll notice up still yesterday it had bars across it, it is also inoperable on the lot line and had the shades drawn 100 percent of the time it is my opinion that they're raising this to try to over turn the variance there is no, no impact the window is not used for light and air it gets plenty of light from the south and west and continue to get it same light after the addition is built i'll mention those workers who were hired by mrs. diesel to tear down the bars yesterday didn't give any, no, sir, to the caterers this is their stairway
4:16 pm
no notice. >> the lot depth 80 is 25 feet the average lot depth is one hundred an irregular parcel severely undersized their crammed and like to stay in the city and have a family only the two of them with such a small footprint of 6 hundred feet with another story to provide an extra bedroom or two have their kids and stay where they are hoping we'll chief that. >> now the zoning administrator as we know has great lad it is the duty to
4:17 pm
exercise his discretion to deverbiage from the rear yard requirements he deems it appropriate he's experienced his board discretion appropriately in the face of reasons i've explained the 3 stories will be consistent with every other house on the block of richardson and also with chestnut no impact on the window as i showed you and the deck on the on top of roof is intended to provide a little bit of open space for the carters they have no rear yard the only ones on the block with no rear yard so hopefully with that deck they can benefit from a little bit of outdoor space and i'll remark that the
4:18 pm
architect for the carters made a change to the project as requested by the zoning administrator and we will ask that you uphold the variance thank you. >> thank you good afternoon scott sanchez planning department. the the subject property on richardson within an rh3 district that allows up to 3 unit and the lot as known is substandard 25 wide by - it is generous a large section that is sliced out of it when they created richardson to create assess to the golden gate bridge this relates to a proposal to expand the existing building as stated the single-family dwelling has within bedroom one
4:19 pm
vertical addition it provides a roof deck and given the size of lot very little open space and little habitable space that provides more ample space for families living on the the subject property as well as the open space on the roof it relate to a building permit application that was submitted at the end of 2014 it does trigger a variance the variance application was filled the hearing to be held earlier on february 24th the original scheme was the stairs while stills interior to projection more to the adjacent pertaining to the north we received comments from the neighbor to the north with concerns of the impact on their property as is applicant look at a scene to look at it is within the footprint and provided the
4:20 pm
project to keep it within the footprint of the building on the ground level to the the subject property and in terms of history of the lot yes i mean this was created it was legally created it was created at some point between 1940 and 46 it appears on 1946 block that is important because 1946 minimum lot requirement so after that time it could be only created with a variance but it was lawfully created has the legal single-family dwelling on the the subject property in terms of the hardship there is a hardship with regards to the lot and the appellant august's it is something while not of the applicant making of the predecessors making section 305 whether or not it is a hardship created by them this is not the
4:21 pm
case and it following the logic of the appellant none will find a hardship because someone responsible for the creation of the lot at some point in time and always a predecessor that created the situation that is there today with the appellants argument you'll not be able to define that or reject that notation if you find the 55 unit have been met they made the changes responded to the concerns we had the level of this this is 1re78d above at the level it is developed a substantial separation within the buildings the main issue is the interpretation of the notch and how it may impact that window it is not going closer to the footprint at the hearing the concerns that were raised by the
4:22 pm
neighbor in regards the impacts on the windows that are quite a bit further away towards the chestnut frontage of the property but still have the project sponsor we issued the decision letter by january 27th and it is appealed there is as i mentioned the permit application the section 317 was noticed and that is the states not heard by the placing not that i'm aware of it is scheduled at this point those are the main points that i wanted to raise from for the boards consideration. >> and i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. >> so do i go ahead. >> no, go ahead. >> mr. sanchez you stated that the changes you required made
4:23 pm
them keeping it within the existing footprint but filling in the notch is expanding beyond the footprint. >> the notch is only the second story the ground level thank you. >> i understand they're intending to fill from the notch above the first building. >> that's correct. >> on the rear yard is 45 percent. >> 45 for that and 15 feet or 25 percent whither is greater. >> the impact on the window is not significant. >> because it is maintaining a separation the initial proposal there say, i think about a 3 and a half 3 foot 3 separation within the property line and the subject this wall that is maintained the previous proposal so you get to build within that
4:24 pm
area in terms of the stairs that connected the 2 story to the proposed 3 story had them keep it within the footprint and not expand beyond the footprint of the existing building. >> that didn't change from the current time. >> right for the project a we've heard. >> commissioner swig. >> so i'll concerned about the owner of hardship and hardship goes both ways i'm a homeowner and have bought and sold a couple of homes in any life one of the things when i buy a home you do due diligence and do cc&rs and add ones to previous permits and something like that. >> buy our house fort
4:25 pm
richardson but looking at to the chestnut street neighbors they bought their homes probably could have don't know wasn't there but if it was me would have looked at and saw that house was closed and feeling comfortable i was protected by a permit when the house was built so i go ahead and buy the house so is there not a hardship created when someone who has owned a house for a period of time whether or not one or four judge's doesn't matter bought the house because a permit was in place to say that will not move further from this what is the argument and the issue of hardship with regards to appreciation owner and current owner again if i buy the house
4:26 pm
on richardson i look at the cc&rs i look at previous permits i see on the previous permit it says i know there as restriction here so if i go ahead and decide to do this i'm creating the hardship for myself it seems is that right where am i going wrong. >> we can blame this whoever built this in 1940. >> it was wrong in the in the first place. >> on chestnut. >> i live 5 blocks away. >> on chestnut is not compliant and the window of the property line is non-compliant they bought that knowing that was adjacent to the building in
4:27 pm
regards to 68 richardson a special refresh my recollection no setting back must be a setback no planning restriction not a setback requirement of any planning approval that was part of building permit approval for the building permit itself this - so that's not the things that of enforced by any planning regulations it is subject to change this will have to be reviewed by the department of building inspection and if it causes an impact that needs to be addressed at that stage of the process it didn't appear to be in violation of any building permit requirements as now i believe those requirements exist they've superseded by current requirements not that i'm aware of that will prevent the subject proposal into moving forward. >> i'm bother by something you
4:28 pm
just said because it undermines it seems to nine things that go on here on occasion we have found the project sponsor tagged on something a tag on something is in perpetuity you have it i've seen it in our brief imperpetuity ones you build it forgot about coming back and asking again so it was what you just said you kind of dismissed a ruling any ruling we make is contact dismissed because you choose to. >> with regards to something as a permit. >> from the laws change in
4:29 pm
this case, the requirements no longer exists can't enforce a requirement that no longer exists and that will enforce the perpetuity we've been presented with i mean part of it is to the property who guess buying if no bead restrictions talking about what the requirements are and the building permit allows them to do this i mean it is a sargent issue in the variance. >> due to the change in the law and the codes that the 3 feet or that 3 foot setback that was required in 1946 was dismissed for or. >> least. >> an 8 foot spraegs is no longer required that's my
4:30 pm
understanding. >> are you finished. >> yeah. >> that was along the lines so mr. boskovich showed a documents on the overhead indicating that there was some type of special restrictions in the past lots of restrictions you knew current laws radio over ridden is that the case. >> not a notice of special requirements on the property noted as a condition of approval by the building department a health code requirements for the property we do this approved per planning code xyz if it planning section changes in the future the property will be subject to those future requirements down the line just because it is noted on the application didn't mean that. >> set in stone. >> exactly. >> okay. next question is the
4:31 pm
appellant mentioned did window is that a lot line 2021. >> it is within closely proximity to the lot line it looks like a foot or two of the property line. >> is that a conforming or non-conforming window. >> with the you'll have to ask the department of building inspection about those matters. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioners do you want to ask the question of the building inspection we don't call them up usually. >> we have rebuttal. >> we'll take public comment anyone wish to comment under public comment? >> hi, i'm a dell lawrence i represented any client for a tenant in 2541 and 43 chestnut
4:32 pm
street i wanted to know i didn't get is the lawyer for the people with the variance or with the people from the planning department. >> advocating any attorney i didn't get it the attendance i'm advocating for one is a young family with an 8-year-old child that lived in the apartment for the past 5 years and a young couple that is rented the apartment they're in rent-controlled apartments having they have no money to move it will block pair light and fresh air when i represented the apartment he highlighted how light and airy those two flats
4:33 pm
were for them to raise their families in and had a lovely garden ms. diesel didn't have any backyard as well the same configuration but this iowa's one as a lovely the yard i want to read a letter. >> amends are you employed by the parapet at this time are you the project manager and. >> i maintained the lots for the tenants the tenants submitted a letter and asked me to read it. >> who are you paid for that in renting those flats. >> i was paid by ms. diesel for renting the flats and.
4:34 pm
>> i think she shouldn't be allowed to give testimony open her own behalf but allowed to read the letter. >> she wrote this letter to the city and county and board of appeals it, it is dated october 24, 2016, we've lived on chestnut street for 3 years and have truly enjoyed our apartments our master bedroom it has a nice amount of light and air the only serious of light is from the backyard as a low building allows the sun to shine in this the richardson area is allowed inform construct this we'll lose the ventilation into our bedroom our source of light will essentially be a light shaft not be able to see any sky and the
4:35 pm
ability for air to flow through the window and described the value of our apartment as good neighbors we've not done anything to invite this into our lives our bedroom looks into the bedroom of richardson avenue and shuts on the windows our neighbors leave their kitchen lines and the light penetrates if it is allowed to have their way there will be more untuition into our daughters bedroom the roof deck will greatly diminish the enjoyment and we'll receive more noise from the deck we can often hear the occupant from the house screaming foul language and we i can only imagine what will happen. >> your time is up.
4:36 pm
>> who's bedroom backs up to the backyard we're copyrighted that will evening fringe on the quiet and we driver's license are legal restrictions and respectfully ask that the board of appeals deny the requested variance i have copies with. >> thank you so you can see it is their words and not mine. >> okay. thank you any public comment on this item. >> step forward. >> good evening jonathan wade thank you for letting me speak i live on chestnut on the corner of richardson and chestnut i have two children a 12-year-old daughter any daughters bedroom faces 68 richardson at the back of the house my daughter is going through a
4:37 pm
rough part of her life a teenager and the last thing she needs is the additional noise and privacy encroached on with a hot tub and we can anticipate what will happen to that deck i'm trying to protect my daughter as any father will do this is my daughter so i humbly respectfully ask you turn down the variance to protect any daughter thank you for your time. >> thank you any other public comment? >> my name is james the homeowner on 2555 chestnut and been there since 2001 i want to emphasize whatever the determination he am hopeful we
4:38 pm
can get along ultimately and i do want to emphasize i'm fair late in the process on this hearing about it in the last month and during that time i'm concerned of the impact of this project on my backyard one of the aspects of with my wife in 2001 we had a nice backyard a small amount of sunlight providing a nice environment that is the enjoyment of the property i am concerned about the additional story as well as the roof deck on the light in my backyard and determined through a shadow studies that was provided by the architect it impacts significantly the light
4:39 pm
in the backyard in the morning and potentially impacts the windows in my house those are the concerns besides there is concerns about loss of privacy as well so i'm concerned about impact on quality of life and the property value of my own property on 2555 chestnut street thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comment. >> hi i live on chestnut and richard son is friendly and neighboring i think that since this happened the things have changed and very concerned about again, the things that my husband brought up about privacy and noise it is simple a noisy street we're obviously on route
4:40 pm
to the golden gate bridge and even with the earplugs our daughter is woke even up i 3wu78gd into the street i had friendly relationships with the owners and you know said hey wanted to let you know those are our concerns and not received well, i understand that everybody is upset effecting all of us but we're all trying to protect your best interests and given the comment that basically we'll get steam rolled over and last week to think we can all be heard and both sides as commissioner swig mentioned impacts yeah take into consideration there were other words said i wouldn't want to say i hope we
4:41 pm
as a neighborhood can get along after this as well. >> would you would you care to state your name. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? seeing no other public comment rebuttal starting with the appellant >> thank you, commissioners ryan patterson for the appellant very quickly and then i'm going to turn it over to to the architect to speak to the technical impacts first there was a quotation from the planning code about hardship created by the owner that was a personal quotation the full quotation correlate hardship not created or attributable to the owners property unquote that is a lot broader and speaks to basic tenants of the zoning law for the previous owners the property the hardship is passed from owner to owner with the understanding that the hardship
4:42 pm
is either a future of the land and if it is self-imposed it is knocked down second there is an exception and reliance by the buyers of this property and the properties that the built in safety measures and setback will be preserved this is a lot line window if they're built up in 3 feet the planning code requires the best case scenario put in very expensive $50,000 sprinkle system a major impact on this property and lastly there is an mention we're removing the stairs so alleviate the impacts the zoning administrator letter reduces the impact but not limits is this
4:43 pm
impact is still there good evening mike of architecture can i have the overhead? please. we do know, of course, a reduction in sunlight and ambiance try to deal with that so we did a sunshine study and found a reduction in the south facing bedrooms in both of the buildings going to be over 1/3rd increase in the mass creating a boxed in feeling for the tight constraints that exist that think that is important to think about the 1940 building permit allowed there in a stand point there is a difference ♪ situation and san francisco
4:44 pm
building code number 9 talks about the property line windows 6 feet is the number that comes up in the building code and there are issues of get rid of the building code when the configuration change these are natural air with the market >> go ahead and finish that thought your time is up. >> to potentially cut the windows off and make a significant impact on the just a minute properties thus, this question about the 1940s building code and that co-existence a peaceful albeit it an older creation but today a new code that could trigger eliminating these windows the building department will have to define that is it is too
4:45 pm
calculated under the circumstances. >> i have a question for mr. patterson. >> yes, sir. >> you made the statement it something modesty trigger the installation of a $50,000 sprinkle you're talking about the clients property. >> it is a mandatory bedroom property line window if it had to be sealed up we'll preserve that bedroom requires you're familiar with the requirements the only potential option we see perhaps can be poling to very expensive sprinkler system talking about a lot of money if it is even an option may not be and but it was barred so not is an egress window. >> egress is not the only
4:46 pm
requirement. >> of course. >> of course. >> and ms. zeller removed those bars not a safe condition didn't mean the window is legally extinguished in any way. >> okay. >> i'd like to ask the timing of the removal of bars over the last two days and what promoted that. >> that was last week and as we are knowledgeable about those things looked at the conditions and we felt not a safety sleeping in that room. >> how long where those bars on the window. >> probably 20 years. >> thank you. >> those bars are changed. >> mr. patterson thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. silverman rebuttal
4:47 pm
time. >> thank you, commissioners can i have the overhead? again. >> very quickly i wanted to respond just to the new points that were raised i'm not going to go over the things that were discussed mr. wade lives on the corner the equivalent of 5 or 6 house separation between the carters house and here i didn't find the comments about the hot tub per successful you as you can see the tree is obtain secured a big tree in the backyard no additional shading there i didn't find that
4:48 pm
persuasive finally on the owner of the window again, this is the window in question where the man is trying to you remove the bars it is i understand this is approximately the lot line it is barred - constantly shaded and not operable this is approximately here off the screen where the bars remain they only took the bars off this one i find that curious and also, this is the walls of the caterer house and the notch that was referred to say further up here up the page
4:49 pm
so, so not going to be my building closure to the window this is above that man's head thank you. >> i got a question for you counselor. >> yes. >> how long have your clients been at the property. >> (inaudible). >> okay. >> thank you thank you. >> this is a technical question. >> sort of like a ships ladder up to the roof but how do you assess the roof. >> how do the access the roof now. >> no, no based on. >> under the new plan. >> yeah. >> i'll ask 9 architect to answer. >> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, i'm michael a
4:50 pm
designer other 6 architecture we're the firm that took over the project after the variance hearing a question how to access the roof it does have a ships ladder that will have sliding basically like a sliding glass door that is flat it slides over. >> the drawing shows looks like a rail along there. >> there is a parapet that will come up. >> there is built in seeking yes. >> okay. >> i have a couple of notes about the shading. >> no, no my question was answered thank you. >> okay. >> rebuttal from mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez
4:51 pm
planning department. a couple of points in regards to the privacy that were related there are minimum windows on the proposed addition actually on the proposed level there are no windows that face north of the properties the windows on the lower level from closest so the bathrooms on the north wall so privacy issue from the constructionists the roof deck roof deck could be constructed on top of the building today without need for a variance not considered a significant expansion that will trigger a variance the means of access triggers a permit but they can be added to the code and the amenities a fire put a gas fire pit not a smoke issue with a gas fire pit they show a hot tub area and then in regards to the
4:52 pm
required variance finding yes. the appellant has correctly restated in the planning code section 305 that it does look to the whether or not the hardship was contributed to the applicant or the owner of property it was not created or attributable to the building constructed well been before the property owner bought the property in 2012, the situation was a created lawfully at the planning code has changed over the years the buildings are now non-complying and in terms of of the impacts on the neighbors i stated i had concerns with the project as it was previously proposed and building that has a negative impact that was significant on the neighbors the code dpa call for a variance to mitigate all the impacts from development but
4:53 pm
whether or not a detrimental impact and given how they've provided the project my understanding it is 3 feet away from the property line not the triggering the closing of the property line window non-conforming and on the appellants property that is my understanding and perhaps joe duffy dbi can add further information to that i'm available to answer any questions. >> i'd like to carry one of our thoughts through that if those hardships sort of westbound pass on or hereditary and you never make in any changes and what was the point of variance hearing. >> good question that's why i have trouble with the logic by the appellant they're not attributable to the owner of the property because the language
4:54 pm
has attributable that somehow. >> you choose to buy. >> they choose to buy it not creating the hardship the hrpts existed when they bought the knowledge but i--i don't know how one will find that hardship if that was the case we're looking back to as they're creating a path and lawfully as we can tell. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez are all the blocks in the arena non-conforming like this one. >> no, it's more. >> no building conforms to current the entire block. >> it is difficult and more challenging on this block because of the angle of richard so that yeah. a fair number of non-compliant buildings along
4:55 pm
richardson. >> because of angle. >> yeah. and post some building were moved as part of the widening of lombard and the cut over of richardson to access the bridge the buildings were moved but not non-conforming not because of building code. >> are you done. >> you look at the beginning of lombard it supermarkets r interseconds lombard they were planning on going down the blafld with the understanding a legal non-conforming structure your according to a planning code claiming it is not a hardship of the prophet or the property owner but given the build and the angle of the street and it's close prompt i didn't to four or five neighbors you don't consider that a hardship on the other neighbors. >> that's how to make the
4:56 pm
changes that reduces the impacts i mean certainly those buildings are they stepped to they're building walls and tried to address that and reduce the impacts by having them segment within the 15 footprint. >> i mean, i understand the other buildings are non-conforming they're not trying to add stories. >> not adding two stories one and a roof deck. >> only two stories. >> okay. >> and then - i was under the understanding the property line was 4 feet and combrours were required. >> my understanding that maybe i'll let the inspector joe duffy answer that. >> commissioners would you like inspector duffy to come up. >> we want to make that worth his while we're paying that
4:57 pm
department. >> good evening, commissioners joe duffy i was on my way home. >> (laughter). >> so that's the question you know considering that a lot of properties in san francisco what we call attached and have properties unattached but when you put lot line windows the planning codes says within 3 feet you don't have to have them like fire protected and their expensive; is that correct. >> for that occupancy it will be 3 feet for the single-family dwellings so the property via the property is single-family dwelling so it is two units 3 feet you can have to do with 3 feet 3 foot 3 to the property line and because when the window is
4:58 pm
existing in the 1940s i don't think we'll tell them. >> are tree grandfathered in. >> pretty much normally what happens if their are windows closer sometimes the planning code will make them notch to protect the light and the reminded for that but i can't see any fire rating if it is 10 feet 3 away not an issue the ab 9. >> it is on the property line. >> i'm looking at 8 to one from the property line. >> wall. >> so the new construction is 3 foot 3 the appellants property near the property line and that's what i said and on a that one is grandfathered in. >> those people suddenly come out and make a complaint there is a windows on the property line we'll not go back there it was there in the 1940s
4:59 pm
what they're talking about an administrative building code in the 1940s if you want to put if property line windows on the property line you can do that they have to be 4 windows with the surprisingly head you're giving up the right to the building and a document it is notarized and can't suddenly say the windows are there. >> that's like in the code now but it wouldn't have been there in the 1940s i can't say something it was a variance case i didn't research as much if i do there is a building code and maybe that probable we'll be dealing with that then and the project has not been approved by
5:00 pm
the dbi and hadn't reached us yet so okay. >> thank you for explaining that inspector. >> and you might be in agreement whatever happened whether with that project under construction they'll never interfere with the windows or file a window on the windows on the neighbors property line and your saying not grandfathered in. >> so does that mean you said they'll not complain why what we complain. >> they could complain anyway. >> you said it window was grandfathered in so why will they complain. >> it was part of the original construction we uniform usually don't go there. >> thank you.
5:01 pm
>> your presence are requested. >> the other point that we have to be concerned is changing the character of the neighborhood and also goes into hardship again, i know the neighborhood really well, because i lived there for now 20 years and the, of a roof deck and on the roof deck building of a fire pit and on the building of a hot tub i don't know i don't know of house in the marina residence that has that condition i mean in my own house i have a deck that extends off a second floor over any living room the house
5:02 pm
was built in 1926 but i don't know of this would be consistent with the concern of changes with the character the neighborhood i don't know of a house in the marina with that type of condition whether a roof deck hot tub and fire pit and all that stuff and that also goes to hardship the neighbors because - >> do you have a question. >> what about that. >> i think that is a good point. one we hear at that board and often in particular in this district about people having a lot of roof deck we've seen a lot of them on the south side of cal hallow and lombard and gotten to the point the district supervisor asked about development guidelines for a roof deck and questions about notification for roof decks,
5:03 pm
etc. i understand that point and the permit holder attorney passed me a photo of with an the adjoining building has a hot tub not a full floor roof deck like this would be it is more but there is habitual area and hot tibia deck off of that area i think that is at some point i mean whether you you know the board feels that is there are issues with the character of the deck that should be reduced in terms of the occupancy or capacity i'll understand that in terms of neighborhood character in the size of the building the adjacent property is on 3 stories the overall height is less but a 3 story building. >> don't worry about the height swuchs as the intrusion.
5:04 pm
>> this is before the board i mean, you're hearing 24 the variance decision and be able to justify that but i understand there are a lot shown on the roof deck just honestly we've seen people - to add those features you don't need the permit maybe no notification so we are asking people that put minimum things open their roof deck and add more features after they go through notification but no trigger of a notice in this case they were very open been the amenities they wanted and mrirld for that what they're seeking and the matter is totally before the board. >> the roof deck is intended to be open space otherwise not on the property. >> otherwise the nullification on the property is the 3 feet passageway and this would be
5:05 pm
actually usable open space for the residents you know at the hearing that was compelling argument about the desire to have something that is more usable for a family and something they can grow into and certainly found those arguments compelling in meeting other properties in similar sdriblgs that are able to have. >> for which not other options on that property; right? >> last question mr. sanchez and so there's a rear yard variance and nothing required for a front yard setback. >> no, no requirements in this case. >> thank you thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> now the - i think mr.
5:06 pm
sanchez was referring to me when he was referring to discussions on residential design. >> everyone was referring to you when discussions on roof decks commissioner. >> no, i think i'll refer to bring up a couple of things because i don't consider them as important as the issue of hardship as an example you know the shadow studies done but the appellant yes probably correct they're in the summertime i doubt there is much different impacts the rest of the year your question here is have they demonstrated hardship. >> it is clear that the it is
5:07 pm
a property right enjoyed by other people around the area i mean every building there is non-conforming so i don't want to get into a question of whether one persons hardship is different than another persons hardship because we are looking at this whether that has criteria of the finding were satisfied when i first look at it was some double park in my mind that all 5 were satisfied especially where they filled in the notch i supported i think the idea that the zoning administrator
5:08 pm
brought forth that anything they do to the property will require a variance because there's no doubt about that i'll support the fact they maybe needing more space contextually the 3 stories are fine i made that agreement why they should have a transparent screening at the roof that perhaps that should be a obtaining absurd. >> i'm trying to come to a decision a variance that allowed them to make the notch was totally justified. >> can you explain that. >> i believe the variance in general in terms of allowing them to build to a certain extent was justified. >> normally i would have said
5:09 pm
when we deal with other areas in the area non-conforming structures like telegraph hill you know i've been against some of these variances which allow an expansion beyond existing envelope and in this case i'm probably leon towards. >> with restrictions or allowing it? >> allowing it i think i will ask that the. >> obscure glossary i'll support that. >> i'm not 100 percent convinced the feeling's we're meat a convincing stance from the department and the hardship of the property is the hardship of the property
5:10 pm
at the same time, we don't want people fleeing from san francisco and 6 hundred and 18 i believe square feet is really not much you can do to the property equip go up and take out that notch you don't get much and since this is probably not the last time we'll hear this case i'll be willing to join my two fellow commissioners. >> batter up. >> i consider the hardship continued no hardship to you know the i believe that the project sponsor bought the house should have recognized that there was this condition. >> yep. >> and therefore suffers no
5:11 pm
hardship therefore your 5 fksdz are not met so i think the hardship is to the other neighbors so - i'd like have to be convinced more. >> make a motion with a condition that requires 4 votes. >> i wanted to ask a question about the condition you're considering which is to place a certain type of glass in the railing for the roof deck; is that right. >> make the parapet. >> parapet. >> didn't have to be obtain i'm not sure. >> sorry to interrupt -
5:12 pm
>> if they don't put it in there. >> yeah. >> then, yes. >> at this time are you saying basically materials are not under the purview of the variance. >> no, i guess i'm curious if this element of the design is within the context of this variance. >> i think that expands into. >> what if it requires 4 votes. >> let me finish it expands into areas that are beneficial of the variance. >> excuse me - benefits of the variance. >> i think that is equally part of it. >> i agree portions of railing are within the rear yard as well as the fact that in order to get access to the roof deck you need to encroach into the rear yard i'll consider that is as acceptable condition as part of
5:13 pm
surveillance letter. >> thank you. >> i'll make a motion i'll move to grant the appeal and condition the variance on changing the glass rail around those roofs to an opaque parapet and that i find with that then the 5 findings of a variance met. >> let me clarify seeking a solid parapet or some 0 page thing that provides privacy. >> it is their choose. >> okay. >> sorry of the same height as currently proposed.
5:14 pm
>> yes. >> okay. so the motion from the vptsdz is to grant the appeal with condition the variance think changing the glass rail around the roof to an obtain page parapet and by making that motion you'll find the 5 fltsdz has been met. >> correct. >> okay. on that motion commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda commissioner swig. >> okay. that that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero and commissioner president honda. >> there's no further business. >> tonight
5:15 pm
derek evans is our clerk today, and thank you mr. evans and i want to thank those at sfgov tv broadcasting this committee for the folks at home. are there any announcements? >> yes, silence all cell phones, and electronic devices and completed speaker cards and any documents to be completed, and the items today will be appear on the november, 15, 2016, board of agenda, unless otherwise stated as there is no meeting on tuesday, nbe

4 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on